Senator COOK (Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (9:43 PM) —From the title of the Petroleum Excise Amendment (Measures to Address Evasion) Bill 2000, people listening to this debate—all of those clamouring for space in the chamber—may come to the conclusion that this is about the current debate on the high price that Australian motorists are paying for petroleum at the petrol pump. As soon as the price per litre hit $1 in urban Australia, there was outcry across the nation about the government's windfall gain and rake-off on the cost of petroleum to Australian motorists. It is not about that concern; it is about fuel substitution and mixing toluene or water with petroleum, evading the due responsibility of a distributor to supply pure spirit rather than diluted spirit and also evading the large amount of tax, or excise in this case, that is due.

But one could be forgiven for thinking it is about petroleum excise per se when on the ABC tonight in my state of Western Australia it was reported that at Cocklebiddy, a way stop on the Great Eastern Highway connecting Western Australia to the eastern states, fuel was retailing at $1.33.4c a litre. Throughout Western Australia and Kalgoorlie it was $1.11c per litre, at Onslow in the north-west it was $1.18, at Exmouth it was $1.19 per litre and at Port Hedland it was $1.12 per litre.

The legislation before the chamber tonight was supported by the opposition in the House of Representatives, but it was supported only after the opposition had moved an amendment to the second reading motion. I now foreshadow that I intend in this chamber to move a resolution in identical terms to be added to the motion that the bill be given a second reading, and the terms of that have been distributed in this chamber. The reason why I will be moving that amendment to the second reading motion is that, while we support this bill, this government has form. It has form in the sense that it has been slow to bring this legislation forward and in the sense that it tried to pass the buck with the minister for transport at the time. Indeed Senator Kemp at the ministerial table knows that in proceedings at estimates committees, in the Senate legislative committees, you yourself, Mr Acting Deputy President George Campbell, pursued this question and got answers—evasive answers, might I say—from the tax office which went to the point of saying that it is not their responsibility to detect fuel substitution and that, as long as the excise is properly paid, they are satisfied. The Customs department makes a similar assertion.

There is, as I say, form by this government in tolerating an excessive amount of diversion and substitution of fuel. We believe that the amendment to the second reading motion would clearly state for the record that the government has been negligent on this; would constitute an appropriate censure by the Senate, because of the government's performance; and, while we support the legislation because it is a step in the right direction, would put the government on notice as well that this chamber will not tolerate the type of duplicity practised by those who engage in substitution and the loss to the revenue—legitimate loss to the revenue in this case—occasioned by the government winking at, being tolerant of or not being quick enough to repair issues of full substitution when and where they occur.

In 1997 the federal government introduced a number of bills aimed at stamping out the practice of fuel substitution. They cited both revenue and consumer protection reasons for doing so. Labor, I might say, supported the government. The bill before the chamber aims to amend a number of those acts and, along with the Excise Tariff Act, help to provide more lasting measures to combat fuel substitution. In particular, this bill will, it is argued, amend the Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Act 1988, the Excise Act 1901, the Excise Tariff Act 1921, the Fuel Blending (Penalty Surcharge) Act 1997, the Fuel Misuse (Penalty Surcharge) Act 1997 and the Fuel Sale (Penalty Surcharge) Act 1997 to replace references to specific excise tariff items with generic descriptions. The Fuel (Penalties Surcharges) Administration Act 1997 would be amended to improve the ability of the government to prosecute those that are undertaking the practice of fuel substitution. This is done by changing the definition of `fuel' to cover a broader range of products and this removes the requirement from the tax office to show that the alleged illegally blended fuel has entered into home consumption. The key consideration for the opposition in this bill is that, while we did not oppose the original fuel blending legislation, we should continue that position. I move:

Debate interrupted.